Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Black People Click Here
His 6 months ended august? 
for he is black!
i mean back!
welcome back deci
> Deci wrote:
> let me get this straight, in usa people throw a hissy fit if you discriminate against blacks, but it's completely ok to discriminate against normal people if they're gay?
there is no discrimination against gays; they have the same rights as everyone else.
> Justinian I wrote:
> I thought you were banned? <
Rule of thumb Justinian, you can't kill the messiah.
o joy
avo, if you're talking about post #31, I failed to see how it shows environment is the dominant factor, especially when you yourself did not reach that conclusion at that time. to quote you: "some degree the appeal is a learned trait"
"genetics have something to do with everything we are;"
If only Morbo can see that.
> there is no discrimination against gays; they have the
> same rights as everyone else.
You don't have to take someones rights away in order to discriminate...
>> "genetics have something to do with everything we are;"
> If only Morbo can see that.
So does environment.
I fail to see how that has anything to do with the topic...Just like me being Swedish .
I am trying to argue equality, why people are different is irrelevant...
Equality sucks. Life is great when you're at the top.
> Equality sucks. Life is great when you're at the top.
You aren't at the top...
And i'm not a hypocrite. If i am treated a way, i want every one of my country men to
be treated the same way...
"You don't have to take someones rights away in order to discriminate..."
correct; but for a government to discriminate, it has distinguish between them and other people, thats what the very word, discriminate, means. but the government does not discriminate because it doesnt distinguish between gays and straights.
> correct; but for a government to discriminate, it has distinguish between them
> and other people, thats what the very word, discriminate, means. but the government
> does not discriminate because it doesnt distinguish between gays and straights.
It does distinguish, because it only allows for one of those groups to marry. By using a
'man and woman' definition. That's just like 'only whites can marry'.
> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:
You aren't at the top...
And i'm not a hypocrite. If i am treated a way, i want every one of my country men to
be treated the same way...>
That's not being a hypocrite. A hypocrite contradicts what they say and what they do. If a Christian preaching sexual purity sleeps with a male prostitute, then he is a hypocrite. But if an Emperor says that his power affords him a life of luxury at the expense of others, then living his lavish lifestyle and treating others like they are lower than him does not make him a hypocrite.
And you're right, I'm not at the top. I'm a lowly young adult still choosing what path I want to follow, but I am looking at the top with a ruthless ambition to get there and crush as many people under my heels as I can.
"It does distinguish, because it only allows for one of those groups to marry"
thats no correct. it allows both groups to get married; the regulations for marriage makes it less desirable for one of these groups; but the government does not seperate the two groups and doesnt make laws for one that doesnt pertain to the other.
"By using a
'man and woman' definition. That's just like 'only whites can marry'."
it is completely different. gays can marry; there is no law saying gays cannot marry; thats saying everything but whites cant marry. completely different. its like saying, "people that cant fit in a single airplane seat, have to pay for two, inorder to fly in the airplane" yes, fat people have to pay for two and skinny people have to pay for 1; yes, both in the case of obesity and homosexuality theres a debate how much it has to do with genetics and how much it has to do with enviroment; it is abnormal people that demand we change the way we do things in order to accommodate them; make extremely large seats in airplanes/ change the definition of marriage.
@avogadro
Here's what Morbo is trying to get at. There's two levels of discrimination. De jure discrimination and de facto discrimination.
De jure (may be spelt wrong): the law itself creates distinctions. This is exactly what you are referring to.
De facto: Creating circumstances that result in discriminating policy. The policy itself doesn't overtly discriminate. However, it creates the circumstances of discrimination.
Here's an example: school lunches. Kids are provided with milk, pizzas, and other dairy products. No soy.
Now, on face, that isn't discrimination. However, when you note that African American children are much more likely to be lactose intolerant, it becomes discrimination. It may not be overt, and it may not even be intentional. But it still exists.
Here's another nice example: walking ramps in buildings. Before stores were required to build ramps, handicapped people were not able to go to certain places due to simple inability to get to the building. It probably wasn't intentional discrimination. But it still created discriminatory circumstances. Handicapped people weren't banned from going to the second floor of buildings, or walking up a couple steps to get to the front door of a store. But they simply couldn't due to real world factors.
That's the same thing with marriage. Homosexuals could marry. But a homosexual man marrying a heterosexual woman is stupid. There's no reason the homosexual man would want that, on an emotional level. It's not overt discrimination. But it's creating circumstances that in themselves discriminate against certain people.
""By using a
'man and woman' definition. That's just like 'only whites can marry'."
they had to pass a specific amendment to outlaw that.
Where's the specific guarantee that sexual orientation can't be a factor?
1 a: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b: distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>2: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences ; especially : to distinguish from another like objectintransitive verb1 a: to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b: to use good judgment2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate
your 2nd definition of discriminate doesnt fit with the actual definition of discriminate. also my comparison to fat people on airplanes is more accurate then any of the examples you provided.
2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit
There is a difference. Not a difference in the law's treatment of the individual, but a difference in the impacts of the system on those people. The exact laws may cover the exact groups of people. But if there are cultural, racial, or other areas that require certain exceptions which aren't considered by the system, then there is de facto discrimination.
> also my comparison to fat people on airplanes is more accurate then any of the examples you provided.
Says who? Why?
Oh, and here's a couple more examples for you:
Drug laws. For the sake of this argument, let's assume two things:
A: Marijuana is bad.
B: Underaged drinking is bad.
I don't want to get into those debates, so let's just assume those two views correct for now. Anyway, what would be the problem with these standards applied universally, in every instance? Discrimination.
Native American tribes use marijuana in various ceremonies.
Christians give a small amount of wine to underaged people accepting communion.
See? There was absolutely no distinction among religious groups in the rules above. However, each of these laws managed to find one segment of society that would have their way of life trampled on simply due to an overarching rule.
(I'm not arguing that, in all cases, discrimination of this sort is bad. There was a Supreme Court case where the court condemned animal sacrifices. Same thing goes for female genital mutilation. But you have to debate them on a case by case basis, and those seeking to have laws without said exceptions always have the burden of proof since, all other things being equal, the discrimination in itself is a bad thing... but I'm not here to say that gay marriage is good or bad. I'm here only to clarify a word)
">> "genetics have something to do with everything we are;"
> If only Morbo can see that.
So does environment."
Environment is a factor. Great. No one should have a problem with that.
What I have a problem with is how you can flat out deny the genetic component.
"There is a difference. Not a difference in the law's treatment of the individual, but a difference in the impacts of the system on those people."
the definition you quoted said it must be a difference in treatment or favor; the fact that theres a differance to how equal treatment effects the individual, does not make it discrimination, because it is not a difference in treatment or favor.
1: It's a difference of treatment or favor. The government is creating a difference of treatment in which society acts toward homosexuals.
2: Your argument is simply semantics at best. I could just as easily argue that the definition you use for "discrimination" isn't an accurate definition if it doesn't encompass de facto discrimination instances.
i pity the black people who click here
1) your argument is the one of semantics; trying to distort the meaning of the word, to fit your socialist ideals.
2) the government is no treating gays different from straights; they make no distinction between gays and straights; if with this equal treatment gays are worse off then straights, then homosexuality is a mental disease and should be prevented and treated.
1: Me? Socialist? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously, I should start enforcing the "first person to hurl an insult auto-loses debates, you can ignore them now" rule...
2: Why can't the definition of words change? Words are simply a representation of a society's outlook of concepts. With each passing generation, new words are created while old words lose meaning. Remember, up until only the 50's and 60's, blatant discrimination by local governments was highly practiced. It took the Civil Rights movement to finally flag it as an issue. Beyond that, it still takes time to evolve an accurate definition for a concept.
3: How would your definition deal with the Grandfather Clause? Or poll taxes?
These two were BLATANT efforts to remove African Americans' right to vote. The Grandfather Clause prevented people from voting unless their Grandfather was an American citizen (most African Americans at the time were recent slaves, so they didn't have grandfathers that were American citizens). The poll tax was simply a tax required in order to register to vote (African Americans at the time were overwhelmingly disproportionately poorer than Caucasians). Two policies that had absolutely, positively 0 mentioning of race in them. Yet both policies are world renowned as policies that did discriminate based on race. That means either the definition itself is wrong, or your interpretation of it is wrong.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Black People Click Here
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.